Saints awaiting third opinion on Nick Fairley

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Originally Posted by Beastmode
Granted, most of it's injury related but still, have to stop giving these journeymen sweet deals. Should have offered a one year deal . Take it or leave it.
IIRC we did just that. Nick exceeded ...

Granted, most of it's injury related but still, have to stop giving these journeymen sweet deals. Should have offered a one year deal. Take it or leave it.

IIRC we did just that. Nick exceeded expectations on his one year deal "prove it" & earned a new contract. I don't think any of us would have projected Fairley to be in this situation a year later, contemplating retirement due to pre existing medical concerns.

FO have proven once again they lack the ability to do the slightest bit of homework on a player before shelling out a big contract.

They were completely aware of his condition at the time of his original acquisition and at the time they gave him the new contract. It was common knowledge. Obviously something new came up when all the players were getting their pre-camp physicals. That is not on the front office at all. How were they going to read the future when he checked out prior to getting the new contract?

my guess with now is that he is being told there is a risk and it is up to him to choose. Maybe the risk is small, but he probably hasn't made a decision. The signing of Tony McDaniel leads me to believe there is concern he isn't coming back. Fingers crossed.

Fairley's complication to his known problem were unforseen. In the past all of NFL, Lions, Rams, and Saints medical had him cleared to play. The current complication is new.

As for the one year contract, that's what the guy had last year. A one year prove it. And he proved valuable. And not only for the Saints, but to the rest of the league.

Of course the Saints could have said "one year: take it or leave it." for 2017. Fairly and his representation would have laughed and immediately shopped his wares to the rest of the league. The Saints had no real leverage to make another one year deal with Fairley.

Of course the replacement costs have to be considered. You offer Fairley a one year take it or leave it. He leaves due to very understandable lack of security and frankly a plain disrespect for his talent and contribution from the previous year. Now what? Who comes in on a one year contract anywhere near the same level of production? Is that guy still available? We can sign him now, yes?

And so here we are. It's not always just a bad decision. Sometimes it's just bad luck. But understand that the Saints are not a monopoly and just underpay and undervalue football players because they are the Saints. There are 31 other teams with just as much (or more) money than the Saints. Those teams can recognize and appropriately value talent too. So proposing lowball "take it or leave it" offers isn't the solution to the problem.

SFIAH

I agree on all points. Law of averages though, we get burnt on long term defensive deals A LOT. A rational mind would see the problem and address it which is do not sign journeymen to anything longer than a year. If they want to jump then let them jump. Someone else will emerge looking for a 1 year deal to prove themselves. After they prove themselves DO NOT PAY IT. Move on. If that reasoning was applied we would be in much much better shape.